Comparative Analysis of Healthy Gut Microbiota in German and Korean Populations: Insights from Large-Scale Cohort Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for microbiolres-2751581
1. The abstract needs to be re-edited. It is not a copy of the main text, but a highly summarized and generalization of the entire text. The language of the entire text still needs to be modified.
2. The explanations or annotations of all the figures are unclear.
3. There is no difference in gut microbiota among people of different age groups, including comparisons between young and older or males and females.
4. Discussion is not a repetition of the introduction or results, nor is it an introduction to how to analyze the sample or repeat the abstract in the first and second paragraphs of discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The abstract needs to be re-edited. It is not a copy of the main text, but a highly summarized and generalizationof the entire text. The language of the entire text still needs to be modified.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The abstract and the main text has been both re-edited and was revised by English editing service (Certification is attached on the last page).
- The explanations or annotations of all the figures are unclear.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The figure legends have been re-edited.
- There is no difference in gut microbiota among people of different age groups, including comparisons between young and older or males and females.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Since data used in this study was retrieved from public database, limited information was only available. It would be very interesting to compare depending on age and sex.
- Discussion is not a repetition of the introduction or results, nor is it an introduction to how to analyze the sample or repeat the abstract in the first and second paragraphs of discussion section.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Repeated sections have been revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article aimed to compare the gut microbiota composition within the healthy population of Germans and Koreans by 16S rRNA sequencing public data. The authors found distinctive microbiomes between Germans and Koreans.
The manuscript is well-written and straightforward, and it contains original and innovative information. Repeated sentences are found in the Results and Discussion sections. Therefore, the reviewer suggests the authors state the data in the Results section, discuss data in the Discussion section, or combine the sections of “Results” and “Discussion” together and present them in “Results and Discussion.”
In addition, this article would be improved if the authors revised and clarified the following:
Line 13. Remove “even” since the authors may not know inter-individual variations in gut microbiota composition of an unhealthy population and did not assess the differences.
In the Abstract section, the authors may include a summary of what may have caused the distinctive microbiomes between Germans and Koreans.
Lines 41-45. Start with a new paragraph and revise it to “Studying the healthy gut microbiome can provide insights into the broader role of the microbiome in human health and disease. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the characteristics of the gut microbiota composition and their microbiome among healthy populations.”
In the Introduction section, the authors may briefly describe the tools available and their advantages for microbiome analysis.
Line 51. Revise to “… other Asian populations, including Koreans.“
Line 74. Revise to “… as a reference [22], ….”
Line 80. What was the p-value to determine the significance?
Lines 86 and 209. The sample numbers presented do not match the data shown in Table 1. Please clarify them.
Lines 87-88. Revise to “Among uploaded data, files with less than 2Mb and broken files were excluded from the study.”
Line 135. Revise to “the core ….”
Lines 143, 145-146, and 147-148. Revise to “were found as the core microbiome.”
Line 152. Revise to “was performed ….”
Lines 183-184. Revise to “Analyzing the abundance profiles of individual microbiome communities; we investigated microbial interaction networks to discern potential patterns of interaction.”
Line 203. Revise to “A key objective in human microbiome research is to pinpoint and characterize bacterial taxa that significantly contribute to different diseases compared to individuals in good health.”
Lines 204-209. Remove the sentences. Those sentences are inappropriate in the Discussion section.
Lines 215-216. Revise to “Arumugam et al. [27], who found ….”
Line 253. Revise to “were detected as the core microbiome.”
Including dietary habits as one of the selection criteria would be interesting.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
This article aimed to compare the gut microbiota composition within the healthy population of Germans and Koreans by 16S rRNA sequencing public data. The authors found distinctive microbiomes between Germans and Koreans.
The manuscript is well-written and straightforward, and it contains original and innovative information. Repeated sentences are found in the Results and Discussion sections. Therefore, the reviewer suggests the authors state the data in the Results section, discuss data in the Discussion section, or combine the sections of “Results” and “Discussion” together and present them in “Results and Discussion.”
In addition, this article would be improved if the authors revised and clarified the following:
Line 13. Remove “even” since the authors may not know inter-individual variations in gut microbiota composition of an unhealthy population and did not assess the differences.
Response: Thank you. It was removed.
In the Abstract section, the authors may include a summary of what may have caused the distinctive microbiomes between Germans and Koreans.
Response: Thank you. But we feel it is beyond your finding to speculate what may have caused the difference between Germans and Koreans.
Lines 41-45. Start with a new paragraph and revise it to “Studying the healthy gut microbiome can provide insights into the broader role of the microbiome in human health and disease. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the characteristics of the gut microbiota composition and their microbiome among healthy populations.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
In the Introduction section, the authors may briefly describe the tools available and their advantages for microbiome analysis.
Response: Thank you. Advantages of NGS in studying microbiome has been described in the introduction section.
Line 51. Revise to “… other Asian populations, including Koreans.“
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 74. Revise to “… as a reference [22], ….”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 80. What was the p-value to determine the significance?
Response: P value under 0.05 was considered significant. It was added in the text.
Lines 86 and 209. The sample numbers presented do not match the data shown in Table 1. Please clarify them.
Response: Thank you. The mismatch was clarified in the text.
Lines 87-88. Revise to “Among uploaded data, files with less than 2Mb and broken files were excluded from the study.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 135. Revise to “the core ….”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented. And we carried out the English editing service (Certification is attached on the last page).
Lines 143, 145-146, and 147-148. Revise to “were found as the core microbiome.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 152. Revise to “was performed ….”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Lines 183-184. Revise to “Analyzing the abundance profiles of individual microbiome communities; we investigated microbial interaction networks to discern potential patterns of interaction.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 203. Revise to “A key objective in human microbiome research is to pinpoint and characterize bacterial taxa that significantly contribute to different diseases compared to individuals in good health.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Lines 204-209. Remove the sentences. Those sentences are inappropriate in the Discussion section.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Removed as commented.
Lines 215-216. Revise to “Arumugam et al. [27], who found ….”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Line 253. Revise to “were detected as the core microbiome.”
Response: Thank you for the comment. Corrected as commented.
Including dietary habits as one of the selection criteria would be interesting.
Response: Thank you the comment. However, very limited information was available in the portal and no specific information about the dietary habits could be found the bio-sample data.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for microbiolres-2751581 Round 2
It is noted that authors made the careful modification in the revised manuscript. However, there are certain limitations in the manuscript content, especially in terms of data analysis. It is hoped that the author can explore more in-depth analysis. Finally, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions.
1. Please pay attention to the singular and plural forms of some words or formatting issues of sentences, such as the “:” should be deleted in the line 20, the “composition s” should be changed to “compositions” in the line 20, etc.
2. In the first sentence of section of abstract, author’s means that inter-individual variations in the of compositions of the gut microbiota can exhibit the uniqueness between national of racial characteristics. Right? If yes, please simplified or clear explanation, including other locations of the manuscript.
3. Like the author’s responses, author can the compare the references in this manuscript based on age and gender, which is also a crucial and interesting aspect?
4. The language and format of manuscript must be modified more carefully.
5. If possible, the author will provide a very clear response based on the above opinions, especially the basis or in-depth explanation for the third question (in-depth data mining), which can be further published in the journal of Microbiology Research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language and format of manuscript must be modified more carefully.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round 2)
It is noted that authors made the careful modification in the revised manuscript. However, there are certain limitations in the manuscript content, especially in terms of data analysis. It is hoped that the author can explore more in-depth analysis. Finally, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions.
- Please pay attention to the singular and plural forms of some words or formatting issues of sentences, such as the “:” should be deleted in the line 20, the “composition s” should be changed to “compositions” in the line 20, etc.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have been re-edited.
- In the first sentence of section of abstract, author’s means that inter-individual variations in the of compositions of the gut microbiota can exhibit the uniqueness between national of racial characteristics. Right? If yes, please simplified or clear explanation, including other locations of the manuscript.
Response : Thank you for the comment. The first sentence was simplified for clarity.
- Like the author’s responses, author can the compare the references in this manuscript based on age and gender, which is also a crucial and interesting aspect?
Response: Thank you for the comment. Yes, we strongly agree with the comment. However, the biosample data in NCBI where we have retrieved the meta data, there were no specific age or gender information. It would be very interesting to compare age matched healthy subjects across different regions. Thank you.
- The language and format of manuscript must be modified more carefully.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have been re-checked.
- If possible, the author will provide a very clear response based on the above opinions, especially the basis or in-depth explanation for the third question (in-depth data mining), which can be further published in the journal of Microbiology Research.
Response: We are sorry that we have no choice but to give you the same answer for the third question as last time. We sincerely appreciate your review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
